Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Hugh Baird malts, 8th March 1938

You know what's been missing here recently? Ridiculous levels of ridiculously specific details. Time to put that right. If I'm not careful, I might get some new readers.

The Thomas Usher Gravity Book. You know those books for keeping kids quiet on their holidays? The Bumper Book of Fun or some such. That's what the Usher Gravity Book is for me. Something to slip into my hands on a rainy Mablethorpe Tuesday. Assuming the Mermaid isn't open yet. The beautiful weather this summer has provided plenty of opportunities to immerse myself in its funerificness.

I'm mostly there for the beer details, natch. But I can't help myself being drawn by the hypnotic gaze of other numbers. I'm such a tart. I like these ones so much, I've put them into a table. This table:

Analysis of malts from Hugh Baird, 8th March 1938

Name of malt

extract per 336 lbs (lbs)

moisture

C.W.E.

D.P.

colour

Own Scotch

99.8

1.5%

18.6%

35º

5º L

??'s Scotch

98.2

1.7%

19.0%

36º

6.5º L

Gaza

83.6

1.4%

14.7%

27º

4º L

Chilean

91

1.8%

17.0%

34º

6º L

Aust. Corfu

86.4

1.4%

15.5%

28º

4º L

Calif

88.1

2.4%

15.6%

29º

4.5º L

????

92.3

1.2%

17.0%

34º

6º L

Egyptian

83.9

1.0%

16.5%

31º

5º L

Source:

Document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive.

I was surprised to see that the Scotch malt gave the best extract. And had the greatest diastatic power.

I'd wondered what C.W.E. stood for. Then an idea , rather like a carelessly thrown mackerel, struck me. Why not look at the malt analyses in Lloyd Hind. They might include a similar column. And it's a good excuse to include a second table. This one:

2 row Malts in the 1930's

Pale Ale malts

Mild Ale malts

malt from foreign 2-row barley

Spratt-Archer

Plumage-Archer

Plumage-Archer

Spratt-Archer

Yorkshire plumage

Moravian

Chilean Chevalier

Bohemian Hanna

moisture %

1.5

1.8

1.7

2.1

2

1.8

1.6

2.5

Extract, lb. 336 lb

100.5

100.6

100.6

99

99.4

98.9

99.9

99.8

colour, 1 inch cell

4.5

4

6.5

6

7

6.5

6.5

4

cold water extract %

18

18.7

19.1

18.7

17.7

17.1

18.7

20.2

diastatic activity Lº

36

37

32

35

32

37

38

35

extract on dry malt

102

102.4

102.3

101.1

101.4

100.7

101.5

102.3

total nitrogen % on dry malt

1.342

1.314

1.322

1.4

1.469

1.518

1.48

1.52

PSN %

0.51

0.509

0.488

0.541

0.469

0.562

0.618

0.6

PSN % on total nitrogen

38

38.7

36.9

38.6

33.3

36.9

41.8

39.5

PSN % on total wort solids

0.67

0.67

0.64

0.72

0.65

0.75

0.82

0.79

Source:

"Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, p. 254, 256 & 258

Notes:

PSN = permanently Soluble Nitrogen

Cold Water Extract. That's what C.W.E. stands for. Doesn't make me much the wiser.

I was going to do the old compare and contrast bit. But there's precious little contrast. The two sets of numbers are pretty damn similar. Only the extract seems a bit low in the case of some of Usher's samples. Bit disappointing that. leaves me a bit . . . . er . . . . . speechless.

Chevalier should be Chevallier. Interesting to see it was being grown as far away as Chile. Also interesting to see "Yorkshire plumage" - the landrace ancestor of Plumage Archer - still being grown in the 1930s.

@Ed. More specifically, its a method of measuring sugars and soluble starches in malt before mashing. Sugars wand soluble starches will dissolve in cold water, most starches starches won't. It's the difference between putting sugar in a glass of cold water and putting in corn starch.

Since sugars are really simple carbohydrates (1-3 molecules in length), and soluble starches are relatively simple carbs (4- ~10 molecules) CWE is a decent method of determining the degree of modification the malt has undergone. The enzymes in more highly modified malt have had more time to break complex starches into simple starches and sugars.